D&D General DM Authority

[DND_Reborn]

People have to accept it.

Um... no. Other games already exist that fill the needs for other types of games.

D&D is going to expand.

Doesn't have to.

DMs have Ultimate Authority.

Finally we agree!!!

DMs' Authority hinges on Clarity to Players.

...and back to disagreeing.

Look, you can reply if you want, but it's pointless to continue. As I said earlier in the thread:

Sometimes lack of communication is what resolves them.

I know I've been in many disagreements where the only answer was to stop the conversation.

So, don't expect me to continue after this. Have a happy new year!

 

[Thomas Shey]

Look at it this way. If I commit a crime, I'm free to take that action, but, if I'm arrested for said crime, I might lose out on quite a bit of the campaign after being replaced with a fresh, level 1 character who hasn't been sentenced to life in prison for various war crimes.

So, basically, I agree with you.

It's not something I'd incorporate in my games, but placing limits on action aren't unjust if the players are aware of them beforehand.

I'm quite with you. As I've said before, some people's views of what's permitted in terms of constraint of character type and behavior are essentially only workable if open-ended sandbox games are the sum total of what kind of campaigns are permitted. I realize for some people that's the platonic ideal of D&D in particular, but it strikes me as remarkably narrow.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Which you’d think might be a strong indication that “the top-down approach” might not involve much Holy Scepter lifting.

That's only true when the GM is well on-page with the group as a whole--in which case, its not really top down. Its a meaningless distinction if he never makes a decision the group as a whole disagrees with (and no, agreeing to play under him is not an indicator that's true--you can very well be part of a group that wants a particular person to GM but doesn't extend him complete carte blanche. The opposite assumption is begging the question).

I really don’t think that the two sides of this latest dispute are really doing anything much differently than each other. It’s just the tendency to characterize the other side hyperbolically that gets people’s hackles up and leads to argument.

Some of them aren't. But I suspect some very much are. In my particular case, I can ask the question (as I did a ways above) that answers the question starkly: if you're running a game, and a simple majority of your players disagree with a decision on something, what do you do? If the answer is "Do it my way anyway" generically (as compared to in special cases) then I think you're on the other side of a pretty clear divide, and I expect there's at least a few people in this thread that would answer that way.

 

[Thomas Shey]

So let me get this straight. The monk in my game should have just been able to make up whatever crazy power they want. A DM who enforces the rules of the game just part of a dysfunctional group?

Are you actually reading what I wrote? What I said was, to use your phrasing, "the player of the monk makes up whatever crazy power he wants and the majority of the group thinks its fine". My reaction as a GM is "Well, okay then." If that happens repeatedly, then yes, I think the group is dysfunctional because the group's expectations and the GMs are seriously out of sync.

Because the monk story happened. I'm not sure I could make up something like that. The question is how is a group supposed to deal with it if not DM being a referee and saying "no"?

The rest of the group saying no. How is that complicated?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Without a DM to rule as final arbiter and storyteller, the game can (and most probably would) descend into chaos.

If you don't think it can do so with a DM as final arbiter, you haven't been around enough. There's no direct connection, other than an authoritarian approach is easier to implement than a consensual one.

 

[Umbran]

The idea that any player is free to establish any detail they want to about the world and the DM just has to accept it is patently absurd to me.

DM: You come to a locked door in the dungeon
PLAYER 1: I use the key my grandfather left me to unlock it.
DM: Um... Your grandfather didn’t leave you the key to this random door in the middle of an orc-infested ruin...
PLAYER 1: Well, lets come to a consensus.
OTHER PLAYERS, (who also want to open the door): We all agree he did.
DM: ಠ_ಠ

So, change that to....
Player 1: I spend a Bennie, and use the key my grandfather left me to unlock it...

....and suddenly this becomes a reasonable mechanic, the GM gets control over by throttling the number of Bennies available.

Tie anything to a resource, and it becomes a meaningful tactical choice for the player.

There's a fairly pervasive fear that, if given more ability to establish things in the world, they will abuse this and break the game.

 

[Thomas Shey]

There's a fairly pervasive fear that, if given more ability to establish things in the world, they will abuse this and break the game.

I think its not entirely unfair to suspect, given unlimited use of such that at least some people would (making a charitable assumption about intent) get carried away with it in a way that a limited ability to do so that is also a tradeoff with other benign options might reign in.

 

[Minigiant]

Doesn't have to.

Sure. And D&D will just die then.

So, don't expect me to continue after this. Have a happy new year!

Happy New Year.

---

Anyway, I find it hilarious that people who got everything out of D&D and have no need to buy books don't get that the owners of D&D will attempt to reach new fans and the new fans will come with new preferences that with force DMs to clear to maintain Authority.

I mean D&D is bult of DM homebrewing but DMs don't have to be clear about their homebrew?

 

[Shiroiken]

If you don't think it can do so with a DM as final arbiter, you haven't been around enough. There's no direct connection, other than an authoritarian approach is easier to implement than a consensual one.

Not sure what you mean, as with DM as final arbiter you can resolve pretty much every situation. A consensual approach can work, but all it takes is one jerk to ruin everything. I try not to play with people like that anymore, but I had less options in high school and college. I've literally played with someone in college who felt their job as a player is to ruin the DM's adventure and campaign plans.

So, change that to....
Player 1: I spend a Bennie, and use the key my grandfather left me to unlock it...

....and suddenly this becomes a reasonable mechanic, the GM gets control over by throttling the number of Bennies available.

Tie anything to a resource, and it becomes a meaningful tactical choice for the player.

There's a fairly pervasive fear that, if given more ability to establish things in the world, they will abuse this and break the game.

It's group dependent. I feel that some leeway is a good thing, but sometimes players can go overboard (see the movie Gamers 2 for an example). Tying it to a resource mechanic is a really good idea, as meaningless crap won't happen.

 

[FrozenNorth]

They were fighting a guy (wizard IIRC) in an open field in the desert. The player said "I start running around him causing a tornado". No special power or spell, he just thought it should work because monks are fast.

So what did the player say when you pointed out that he is only running twice as fast as a guy wearing plate mail?